Foxxinnia:NobleHam: Is it weirder to be a human farking a robot that looks human or a robot doing the same? The latter seems more bizarre to me.

I don't understand what you mean with the latter. You mean a robot farking a human that looks like a robot?

I think he means that a human farking a robot is understandable, because humans are designed to fark and to like farking. A robot farking a robot is nonsensical, because robots have no need or desire to fark.

theorellior:Foxxinnia: NobleHam: Is it weirder to be a human farking a robot that looks human or a robot doing the same? The latter seems more bizarre to me.

I don't understand what you mean with the latter. You mean a robot farking a human that looks like a robot?

I think he means that a human farking a robot is understandable, because humans are designed to fark and to like farking. A robot farking a robot is nonsensical, because robots have no need or desire to fark.

I meant a human farking a robot that looks like a human is semi-understandable because of what you said, and because it looks like a human. But presumably a robot would want its robot sex partners to look robotic, not human.

NobleHam:theorellior: Foxxinnia: NobleHam: Is it weirder to be a human farking a robot that looks human or a robot doing the same? The latter seems more bizarre to me.

I don't understand what you mean with the latter. You mean a robot farking a human that looks like a robot?

I think he means that a human farking a robot is understandable, because humans are designed to fark and to like farking. A robot farking a robot is nonsensical, because robots have no need or desire to fark.

I meant a human farking a robot that looks like a human is semi-understandable because of what you said, and because it looks like a human. But presumably a robot would want its robot sex partners to look robotic, not human.

Well, wait. In our first scenario the robot getting farked looks like a human. In the second scenario does one robot look like a human and another not look like a human? I think a robot that looks like a human having sex with a robot looking robot is way weirder than two robots who look like humans farking.

Foxxinnia:NobleHam: theorellior: Foxxinnia: NobleHam: Is it weirder to be a human farking a robot that looks human or a robot doing the same? The latter seems more bizarre to me.

I don't understand what you mean with the latter. You mean a robot farking a human that looks like a robot?

I think he means that a human farking a robot is understandable, because humans are designed to fark and to like farking. A robot farking a robot is nonsensical, because robots have no need or desire to fark.

I meant a human farking a robot that looks like a human is semi-understandable because of what you said, and because it looks like a human. But presumably a robot would want its robot sex partners to look robotic, not human.

Well, wait. In our first scenario the robot getting farked looks like a human. In the second scenario does one robot look like a human and another not look like a human? I think a robot that looks like a human having sex with a robot looking robot is way weirder than two robots who look like humans farking.

In the second scenario at least one robot looks like a robot. I'm not sure how I feel about two robots who look like humans farking each other. Unlike the other two, I haven't given that scenario much thought.

Robots are autonomous. These are not. They don't make decisions based on their programming. They follow a pre-programmed routine exactly as provided to them. They are animatronics, not robots, and they're definitely not the first. Disney World had the Country Bear Jamboree which opened in 1971, and it did the same thing except with pre-recorded music.

The Rock-afire Explosion was around in the 80s, and again, they used pre-recorded music and were programmed to look like they were playing.

So the only "first" here is that these things are playing the music they've been programmed to play... but then, if we're going to consider this the qualification for being a "robot band", then we have to consider these things:

Nickelodeons and player pianos did the EXACT SAME THING as these "robots" -- They had a computer program-- in this case, in the form of a paper punchcard or scroll-- and they played every instrument as they were programmed. The only difference is that they weren't anthropomorphic, i.e. the inventors didn't bother to make them look like people by giving them essentially nonfunctional heads and limbs.

The first player pianos appeared in the 1870s. Nickelodeons were popular in the early 1900s (look at the date on the one above!). They died out as the century rolled onward and phonographs replaced them, but to say that this thing in Moscow is the "world's first robot band" is way off the mark.

Now... The headline calls it the "world's first robot rock band" and that may be closer to the truth, but I'd be willing to bet you could find a lot of nickelodeons that were fed scrolls or punch cards with rock music on them as soon as rock music became a thing. I wasn't around in the 1950s, but I'd be willing to bet SOMEWHERE there was a bar that had an old nickelodeon that got fed some cards with Elvis Costello or Elvis Presley tunes punched into them.